Mano Laohavanich: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

m

Line 21:

One incident that Dr. Laohavanich was particularly famous for being involved in was the case of Johnathan Doody, a suspect in the Arizona Buddhist temple shooting in 1991. As a result of this bloody shooting, Doody was convicted in 1994 of armed robbery and the murder of nine people, including six monks.<ref name=azcentral>{{cite news|url=http://archive.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/20130924judge-declares-mistrial-in-temple-killings-retrial-of-johnathan-doody-abrk.html|author=Laurie Merrill|author2=Miguel Otarola|title=Judge declares mistrial in temple killings retrial of Johnathan Doody|work=[[The Arizona Republic]]|date=24 October 2013|accessdate=19 June 2015|archive-url=https://archive.is/20150621151544/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/20130924judge-declares-mistrial-in-temple-killings-retrial-of-johnathan-doody-abrk.html|archive-date=2015-06-21|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19930713&id=i5VGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FvgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6434,2591985|title=Teen-ager convicted in Buddhist temple massacre|work=[[The Day (New London)]]|date=13 July 1993|page=A12|agency=[[Associated Press]]|location=Phoenix|access-date=2016-09-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310004716/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19930713&id=i5VGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FvgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6434,2591985|archive-date=2016-03-10|url-status=live}}</ref> While still a monk, Laohavanich took a deep interest in the case from its onset, promoting the idea that Doody was innocent.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Stuart|first1=Gary|title=Innocent Until Interrogated|date=2010|isbn=978-0-8165-0449-7|p=261–2, 290|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/innocentuntilint0000stua}}</ref> Laohavanich cited aspects of the investigation as well as cultural reasons as to why Doody could not have committed the crime. Laohavanich stated that "[i]t was inconceivable that a person born of Thai parents would commit such a crime against monks"<ref name="auto">{{cite news|url=https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20081208/281590941421191|last1=Ngamkham|first1=Wassayos|title=Former Monk Stands by Convicted Killer|accessdate=18 September 2016|work=[[Bangkok Post]]|publisher=The Post Publishing|date=8 December 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204085418/https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20081208/281590941421191|archive-date=2017-02-04|url-status=live}}</ref> and published several writings on the case arguing for Doody’s innocence. Still as a monk, Laohavanich even raised money from lay people from numerous temples for Doody's appeal, which sparked criticism from some senior monks.<ref name="auto" />

In 1993, Laohavanich hired Prof. Alan Dershowitz, the most popular Law Professor of Harvard University to fight for the defense of Johnathan Doody that saved the accused from death penalty. Dershowitz succeeded in proving that Doody was not even Miranda warning and was unconstitutionally interrogated by the police of Arizona. Laohavanich raise funds of 750,000 USD (18 MN THB) to fights for Doody defense from Buddhist community in Thailand. Laohavanich strongly believe innocence of accused but sadly after long trial, Doody was given a re-trial by the court of Arizona. Throughout the trial and re-trial, Doody was not given any chance defenseto himselfspeak in the legal process. Doody is still fighting for justice.

In 2008, Doody's conviction was overturned on the basis that his confession was not voluntary.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20081208/281599531355783|last1=Ngamkham|first1=Wassayos|title=New Hope For Doody Supporters|accessdate=18 September 2016|work=[[Bangkok Post]]|publisher=The Post Publishing|date=8 December 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204085421/https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20081208/281599531355783|archive-date=2017-02-04|url-status=live}}</ref> The next trial resulted in a mistrial.<ref name=azcentral />

Line 29:

== Scholarly Works ==

Laohavanich was known for having some unorthodox interpretations of the [[Tripiṭaka|Tripitaka]].<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Seeger|first=Martin|date=2006|title=The Bhikkhuni Ordination Controversy in Thailand|url=https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8976/2869|journal=Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies|volume=29|pages=168|access-date=2017-12-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180518200517/https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8976/2869|archive-date=2018-05-18|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":11" /> While he was living at Wat Rajorasaram, he published an article speculating that the Buddha died of a blood disease brought on by eating too much, rather than by food poisoning.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha192.htm|title=Mettanando – How the Buddha died|website=www.budsas.org|access-date=2017-12-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810011718/http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha192.htm|archive-date=2017-08-10|url-status=live}}</ref> This caused disputes with Thai authorities at the time, who considered the publication harmful to Buddhism. This, as well as some of Laohavanich's other theories, resulted in authorities taking away his monastic ID card, effectively forcing him to leave the monkhood.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,11378,0,0,1,0#.WkV8G9-nHIU|title=Thailand-Crushing royal critics feels so un-Buddhist|website=www.buddhistchannel.tv|access-date=2017-12-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150517021103/http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,11378,0,0,1,0#.WkV8G9-nHIU|archive-date=2015-05-17|url-status=live}}</ref>

Something that achieved much attention was Laohavanich's publications on ordained Buddhist nuns, or ''[[bhikkhuni]]''. Like some other scholars, Laohavanich believes the [[The Eight Garudhammas|Eight Garudhammas]], eight restrictions that only apply to ''bhikkhunis'', may not have been the actual words of the Buddha, but were later additions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html#section-5|title=Ananda: The Guardian of the Dhamma|website=www.accesstoinsight.org|language=en|access-date=2017-12-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171229112530/https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html#section-5|archive-date=2017-12-29|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AaYnAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Innovative Buddhist Women: Swimming Against the Stream|last=Tsomo|first=Karma Lekshe|date=2013-09-05|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-11426-7|location=|pages=6|language=en}}</ref> However, Laohavanich claims that these were added much earlier than what most other scholars who argue this believe, during the [[First Buddhist council|First Buddhist Council]]. He has speculated that two of the Buddha's principal disciples, [[Mahākāśyapa|Mahakassapa]] and [[Ananda]], may have been rivals who competed for the existence of the bhikkhuni order. In 2007, Laohavanich stated: